The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's decision regarding the sentencing of William J. Bonney, who was convicted of first-degree sexual assault causing pregnancy. The court ruled that Bonney should be resentenced after it found that the original court had erred in its handling of his postconviction motion. This ruling affects Bonney, who is currently serving a lengthy sentence, and could have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future.

Bonney was convicted in 2016 after he pled no contest to sexually assaulting his adult daughter, which resulted in her pregnancy. The case has drawn attention due to the nature of the crime and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court's decision to order a resentencing is significant because it highlights the importance of considering new evidence in sentencing decisions.

In the original case, Bonney was sentenced to 20 years of initial confinement followed by 10 years of extended supervision. The prosecution had recommended a lengthy sentence, citing the severity of the offense and its impact on the victim. However, Bonney's defense argued for a lighter sentence based on mitigating factors, including his mental health evaluations.

In September 2024, Bonney filed a motion for resentencing, supported by a new psychological evaluation that challenged previous diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder. This new evaluation, conducted by Dr. LaToya Williams, suggested that Bonney had borderline intellectual functioning and major depressive disorder instead. The State agreed to a new sentencing hearing, allowing the court to consider this new information.

The resentencing hearing took place in April 2025, where both the prosecution and defense presented their arguments. The State maintained that the seriousness of Bonney's crime warranted the original sentence, while the defense highlighted the new psychological evaluation and Bonney's progress since his original sentencing.

Despite acknowledging the new evidence, the circuit court ultimately upheld the original sentence, stating that the nature of the offense and its impact on the victim justified the length of the sentence. However, the court's decision to deny Bonney's motion for resentencing was challenged on appeal.

The Court of Appeals found that the circuit court had committed errors in its handling of the resentencing process. The court ruled that the original sentence should have been vacated before any resentencing occurred. It emphasized that when a resentencing is required, the initial sentence ceases to exist.

The court stated, "The sentence should 'specify the objectives of the sentence on the record,' which may include, but are not limited to, the protection of the community, punishment of the defendant, rehabilitation of the defendant, and deterrence to others." The court concluded that the circuit court had not properly exercised its discretion in denying Bonney's motion for resentencing.

As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the order denying Bonney's postconviction motion and remanded the case with directions for the circuit court to vacate the original sentence and grant the motion for resentencing. The court directed that an amended judgment of conviction imposing a new sentence of the same length as the original be issued.

This ruling has significant implications for Bonney, who will now have the opportunity for a new sentencing hearing that takes into account the updated psychological evaluation and any other relevant factors. It also underscores the importance of ensuring that sentencing decisions are based on accurate and comprehensive information.

The decision could set a precedent for future cases where new evidence emerges after sentencing, emphasizing the need for courts to consider all available information before making a final determination on a defendant's sentence.

Looking ahead, it is possible that the State may seek to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision, although details were not available in the court filing. If the case proceeds to resentencing, it will be crucial for the circuit court to carefully weigh all evidence and arguments presented by both sides.